Holy shit man imagine if we judged every huge project by one asshole at the top. There wouldn’t be a single thing to enjoy in this world.
Edit:
I am going to add more perspective to this, because holy shit people are so into eating nothing burgers.
Reddit/Twitter was a database and API that everyone was centralized onto, there was no choice. Brave you can literally fork because its open source. Aside from that this was literally the CEO’s personal donation of $1000…in like 2014. Almost 10 yrs ago.
The article isn’t judging by the one asshole, it breaks down specific flaws in the core of the product itself. Also when the “one person” is the CEO who guides the decisions the become the spirit of the product, one bad person can be enough. Twitter is now irredeemable because of the cancer of elon musk at the top, for example.
Also, a little tone deaf to make a statement like yours on Lemmy; a place basically populated entirely by people leaving Reddit because of the toxic, user-hostile decisions of spez on Reddit.
Underrated comment - the top is filled with toxic scum. Like if one really looked into it, everything would have to be boycotted (not that it isn’t a worthy thing to do, but it gets exhausting and scumbags seem to own everything)
I don’t personally resonate with the idea of “boycotting” things, mostly for the fact that these companies will never miss the $20 I would have spent on them. “Boycot” to me, implies some sort of noticeable statement.
For me, when Im thinking about getting a Chik-Fil-A or something, the question is simple: “Do I want to give my money to these people?”
Calling something Ubiquitous isn’t arguing any point. It’s just a statement of observance. It’s not a call to action. It’s not a reason to do one thing or another. If anything, it’s a symptom. A pattern. And patterns can be a reason to change. Happens in psychology all the time. In fact looking for the patterns is in part in identifying a problem. So congrats on identifying something everyone else already knew. But you certainly can’t argue that a pattern as enough of a reason to not change a pattern.
Ok but like that asshole is using his money and power to donate to horrible stuff. Even if we take the stance that you shouldn’t let someone’s opinion ruin what they make, you’re still helping him support his causes financially through using his platform.
Or wow, it’s almost like people care about that sort of thing on the platform were most people came from Reddit or twitter because of the awful actions of their respective CEOs or something
Oh believe me I get it. But at the same time the CEO didn’t rename brave browser “anti woke browser” and force it to not load “woke sites man”.
Shits all open source right? Even if I disagree with him politically that’s on him. I can use my money to donate to my political designation and even fork the brave browser if I don’t want to support it.
Elon and Spez were one way no choice fuck you CEOs. We didn’t get much choice there. And they use their platforms to remind you of that. I don’t really feel like brave does that at all.
Edit: I’m also going to add that I don’t use brave. I also don’t care much about politics outside of leave me alone, leave my neighbor alone, and make things affordable.
Don’t you don’t think that a CEO highly affects (if not sets and controls) the strategy, priorities and direction of an organization?
If you agree with that, would you then agree that a CEOs values and way of doing things highly affects they way he sets strategy, prioritizes and in what direction the organization should move?
If the huge asshole at the top uses their money earned as CEO to fund bigoted causes, yeah, I generally stop patronizing that business. Maybe you don’t have the energy to care about things, and that’s fine. Last time I checked, the Mozilla Foundation was still fairly ethical.
No. That is factually wrong. Brave is open source. This is more like if we discovered the creator of mastodon was donating any profits he managed to make to some bigotry party.
You wouldn’t see me barking down the nice people who host mastodon or contribute to its code.
Separate the patrons, artists and art. Because it is not the same and that logic cuts all sorts of ways.
I don’t know what it is, but a fair number of people are incoming these types of arguments these days, especially in academia. What started this trend?
I’m not sure if you mean to say people like me arguing to separate patrons, artists and the art - especially where this is open source - or people like the writer of the article in the OP.
So I’ll speak to it from both ends: people naturally want to vote with their time and money. If money is seeing ads and generating crypto for someone they don’t support; fine. I think everyone understands where they’re coming from. On the other hand I can google github + project-name for brave and find all the code and fork it…if you don’t like something about brave just fork it or use a stripped down fork.
I don’t use brave to begin with but the public executions are fucking obnoxious when the product hasn’t taken a unilateral shift in direction. Twitter and Reddit were proprietary platform you were locked in for if you used them daily. There was never an alternative way to use those products in their full functionality; both had to be 100% recreated on mastodon/lemmy. If you don’t like Brave’s CEO you can literally fork the project, remove the shit you don’t like and use the work for free.
Sorry, my comment got mangled and I had some typos. I agree that we can separate artists and art. I am annoyed that so many people try to argue the contrary. In academia, many are currently trying to argue that you cannot separate the artist from their art (at least, in music circles). I find that perspective juvenile.
Calling something Ubiquitous isn’t arguing any point. If anything, it’s a symptom. A pattern. looking for the patterns is in part in identifying a problem. So congrats on identifying something everyone else already knew. But you certainly can’t argue that a pattern alone as enough of a reason to not change a pattern. Go back to identifying the sun as the sun while the adults talk.
I think most leaders of companies apologize and take ownership when they publicly screw up. The problem in Eich’s case is he doesn’t think it’s wrong to strip same-sex couples of their equal right to marry, so he felt he didn’t need to apologize for helping to make that happen.
Holy shit man imagine if we judged every huge project by one asshole at the top. There wouldn’t be a single thing to enjoy in this world.
Edit:
I am going to add more perspective to this, because holy shit people are so into eating nothing burgers.
Reddit/Twitter was a database and API that everyone was centralized onto, there was no choice. Brave you can literally fork because its open source. Aside from that this was literally the CEO’s personal donation of $1000…in like 2014. Almost 10 yrs ago.
Elon, as CEO and on the X/Twitter brand:
Meanwhile Brendan:
The article isn’t judging by the one asshole, it breaks down specific flaws in the core of the product itself. Also when the “one person” is the CEO who guides the decisions the become the spirit of the product, one bad person can be enough. Twitter is now irredeemable because of the cancer of elon musk at the top, for example.
Also, a little tone deaf to make a statement like yours on Lemmy; a place basically populated entirely by people leaving Reddit because of the toxic, user-hostile decisions of spez on Reddit.
Underrated comment - the top is filled with toxic scum. Like if one really looked into it, everything would have to be boycotted (not that it isn’t a worthy thing to do, but it gets exhausting and scumbags seem to own everything)
That’s why life is hard for grownups. You have to decide what you think is important and not.
With your way of seeing things it looks like no one should be criticised since no one is without sin?
Sin is a fictional construct of control. I believe you meant “fault”, but felt it worth noting that the difference in terminology is immense.
English isn’t my first language. It was a play on “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".
Yes, I presumed as much. My point stands, and “fault” would’ve fit more easily.
Also, downvotes on Lemmy are not the petty things they are on Reddit, so let’s keep the disagreement civil and rational, instead. 🤗
I don’t personally resonate with the idea of “boycotting” things, mostly for the fact that these companies will never miss the $20 I would have spent on them. “Boycot” to me, implies some sort of noticeable statement.
For me, when Im thinking about getting a Chik-Fil-A or something, the question is simple: “Do I want to give my money to these people?”
Calling something Ubiquitous isn’t arguing any point. It’s just a statement of observance. It’s not a call to action. It’s not a reason to do one thing or another. If anything, it’s a symptom. A pattern. And patterns can be a reason to change. Happens in psychology all the time. In fact looking for the patterns is in part in identifying a problem. So congrats on identifying something everyone else already knew. But you certainly can’t argue that a pattern as enough of a reason to not change a pattern.
And then they cry because of brigading. I will tell you something. I got brigaded multiple times from FIREFOX USERS.
Ok but like that asshole is using his money and power to donate to horrible stuff. Even if we take the stance that you shouldn’t let someone’s opinion ruin what they make, you’re still helping him support his causes financially through using his platform.
Or wow, it’s almost like people care about that sort of thing on the platform were most people came from Reddit or twitter because of the awful actions of their respective CEOs or something
Oh believe me I get it. But at the same time the CEO didn’t rename brave browser “anti woke browser” and force it to not load “woke sites man”.
Shits all open source right? Even if I disagree with him politically that’s on him. I can use my money to donate to my political designation and even fork the brave browser if I don’t want to support it.
Elon and Spez were one way no choice fuck you CEOs. We didn’t get much choice there. And they use their platforms to remind you of that. I don’t really feel like brave does that at all.
Edit: I’m also going to add that I don’t use brave. I also don’t care much about politics outside of leave me alone, leave my neighbor alone, and make things affordable.
Don’t you don’t think that a CEO highly affects (if not sets and controls) the strategy, priorities and direction of an organization?
If you agree with that, would you then agree that a CEOs values and way of doing things highly affects they way he sets strategy, prioritizes and in what direction the organization should move?
If the huge asshole at the top uses their money earned as CEO to fund bigoted causes, yeah, I generally stop patronizing that business. Maybe you don’t have the energy to care about things, and that’s fine. Last time I checked, the Mozilla Foundation was still fairly ethical.
Lies. Your CEO is killing Firefox. They are working with Meta and Google.
Twitter.
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser
No. That is factually wrong. Brave is open source. This is more like if we discovered the creator of mastodon was donating any profits he managed to make to some bigotry party. You wouldn’t see me barking down the nice people who host mastodon or contribute to its code.
Separate the patrons, artists and art. Because it is not the same and that logic cuts all sorts of ways.
I only buy products created by virginal saints.
I don’t know what it is, but a fair number of people are incoming these types of arguments these days, especially in academia. What started this trend?
I’m not sure if you mean to say people like me arguing to separate patrons, artists and the art - especially where this is open source - or people like the writer of the article in the OP.
So I’ll speak to it from both ends: people naturally want to vote with their time and money. If money is seeing ads and generating crypto for someone they don’t support; fine. I think everyone understands where they’re coming from. On the other hand I can google github + project-name for brave and find all the code and fork it…if you don’t like something about brave just fork it or use a stripped down fork.
I don’t use brave to begin with but the public executions are fucking obnoxious when the product hasn’t taken a unilateral shift in direction. Twitter and Reddit were proprietary platform you were locked in for if you used them daily. There was never an alternative way to use those products in their full functionality; both had to be 100% recreated on mastodon/lemmy. If you don’t like Brave’s CEO you can literally fork the project, remove the shit you don’t like and use the work for free.
Sorry, my comment got mangled and I had some typos. I agree that we can separate artists and art. I am annoyed that so many people try to argue the contrary. In academia, many are currently trying to argue that you cannot separate the artist from their art (at least, in music circles). I find that perspective juvenile.
Anyway, I agree with you Gnubyte.
Calling something Ubiquitous isn’t arguing any point. If anything, it’s a symptom. A pattern. looking for the patterns is in part in identifying a problem. So congrats on identifying something everyone else already knew. But you certainly can’t argue that a pattern alone as enough of a reason to not change a pattern. Go back to identifying the sun as the sun while the adults talk.
I think most leaders of companies apologize and take ownership when they publicly screw up. The problem in Eich’s case is he doesn’t think it’s wrong to strip same-sex couples of their equal right to marry, so he felt he didn’t need to apologize for helping to make that happen.